So much depends on the car, how you can depend on it's grip and how easy it is to setup and drive, some drivers spend their whole career in low or midfield cars and have to adjust to being handicapped and some spend whole careers in top shelf cars.

So much of all of these discussions are resultdriven, and that makes it only about 2-4 drivers max per race, for the last years (2014-2016) only 2, last race only 1 had the equipment to win, so how do you rate that?

There is a reason why some drivers have top cars and some are left in midfield cars and luck tends not to have that much to do with it.

Obviously a dig at Hamilton but look at the teammates he's had, Alonso, Button and Rosberg, all world champions, I think Rosberg showed his worth against Schumacher if you want to go down the dominant car route. Even Bottas who beat Massa 3 years on the trot, Massa was about 30 seconds away from being a world champion and he beat his world champion teammate Raikkonen.

Hamilton has shown himself to be better than all these drivers bar Alonso were it was very equal, Alonso proclaimed by many as the best driver of this generation, you think that Hamilton doesn't deserve to be in the top 5?

So you believe that stepping in to the fastest car in 2007 or being pursuaded to join Mercedes in 2013 has nothing with luck to do at all?

There were many people that thought he would get crucified by Alonso and it would damage his career, it's so easy to get crushed and fall by the wayside, and being in a WDC title fight with Alonso only magnified that, it's interesting you call that luck and think that any rookie driver could have done what Hamilton did.

As for joining Mercedes you may see it as luck because they were not his first choice, but you fail to see that he left McLaren at at time when they had the fastest car and Mercedes were a midfield team, now there's no doubt that he could not foresee the Mercedes domination but give credit to the man for seeing what was his best option, Button thought he was nuts and with Hamilton out of the way he was going to be world champion in 2013.

While I wouldn't dispute your list, it must be pointed out that I think it's probably unfair to judge drivers who have sub standard machinery to deal with, since it's clear that putting a driver into a good car can make a big difference to their performance (and let's be honest 'motivation').

So much depends on the car, how you can depend on it's grip and how easy it is to setup and drive, some drivers spend their whole career in low or midfield cars and have to adjust to being handicapped and some spend whole careers in top shelf cars.

So much of all of these discussions are resultdriven, and that makes it only about 2-4 drivers max per race, for the last years (2014-2016) only 2, last race only 1 had the equipment to win, so how do you rate that?

There is a reason why some drivers have top cars and some are left in midfield cars and luck tends not to have that much to do with it.

Obviously a dig at Hamilton but look at the teammates he's had, Alonso, Button and Rosberg, all world champions, I think Rosberg showed his worth against Schumacher if you want to go down the dominant car route. Even Bottas who beat Massa 3 years on the trot, Massa was about 30 seconds away from being a world champion and he beat his world champion teammate Raikkonen.

Hamilton has shown himself to be better than all these drivers bar Alonso were it was very equal, Alonso proclaimed by many as the best driver of this generation, you think that Hamilton doesn't deserve to be in the top 5?

So you believe that stepping in to the fastest car in 2007 or being pursuaded to join Mercedes in 2013 has nothing with luck to do at all?

So Felipe Massa was pulling Grand Chelems against Alonso and Hamilton in the 2nd best car?

When both finished Alonso beat Massa 8-5 in 2007 and that 8 included -

- Massa started 20th in Australia after blowing up in qualifying- Massa started in the pits at Silverstone after clutch failure on the grid- Massa started 16th in Hungary due to getting blocked on his qualifying lap- Massa getting overtaken by Alonso in the closing stages on the European GP as the rain started to fall- The wet race in China where Massa was nowhere until it dried out and he began to catch Alonso.

In Massa's 5 finishes ahead, Alonso had broke down in Q3 and started 10th in France. Massa took pole and had been quicker than Alonso all weekend and likely would have finished ahead anyway.

Conclusion - Massa was able to beat Alonso about half the time in 2007. If it was dry then that was considerably more than half. No way can Massa be on Alonso's pace in an inferior car, the opposite was true in the second half of 2006 and everything after 2007 points to the opposite too.

So much depends on the car, how you can depend on it's grip and how easy it is to setup and drive, some drivers spend their whole career in low or midfield cars and have to adjust to being handicapped and some spend whole careers in top shelf cars.

So much of all of these discussions are resultdriven, and that makes it only about 2-4 drivers max per race, for the last years (2014-2016) only 2, last race only 1 had the equipment to win, so how do you rate that?

There is a reason why some drivers have top cars and some are left in midfield cars and luck tends not to have that much to do with it.

Obviously a dig at Hamilton but look at the teammates he's had, Alonso, Button and Rosberg, all world champions, I think Rosberg showed his worth against Schumacher if you want to go down the dominant car route. Even Bottas who beat Massa 3 years on the trot, Massa was about 30 seconds away from being a world champion and he beat his world champion teammate Raikkonen.

Hamilton has shown himself to be better than all these drivers bar Alonso were it was very equal, Alonso proclaimed by many as the best driver of this generation, you think that Hamilton doesn't deserve to be in the top 5?

So you believe that stepping in to the fastest car in 2007 or being pursuaded to join Mercedes in 2013 has nothing with luck to do at all?

So Felipe Massa was pulling Grand Chelems against Alonso and Hamilton in the 2nd best car?

When both finished Alonso beat Massa 8-5 in 2007 and that 8 included -

- Massa started 20th in Australia after blowing up in qualifying- Massa started in the pits at Silverstone after clutch failure on the grid- Massa started 16th in Hungary due to getting blocked on his qualifying lap- Massa getting overtaken by Alonso in the closing stages on the European GP as the rain started to fall- The wet race in China where Massa was nowhere

In Massa's 5 finishes ahead, Alonso had broke down in Q3 and started 10th in France. Massa took pole and had been quicker than Alonso all weekend and likely would have finished ahead anyway.

Conclusion - Massa was able to beat Alonso about half the time in 2007. If it was dry then that was considerably more than half. No way can Massa be on Alonso's pace in an inferior car, the opposite was true in the second half of 2006 and everything after 2007 points to the opposite too.

indeed I didn't go down that route in case it veered the thread wildly off topic.

So much depends on the car, how you can depend on it's grip and how easy it is to setup and drive, some drivers spend their whole career in low or midfield cars and have to adjust to being handicapped and some spend whole careers in top shelf cars.

So much of all of these discussions are resultdriven, and that makes it only about 2-4 drivers max per race, for the last years (2014-2016) only 2, last race only 1 had the equipment to win, so how do you rate that?

There is a reason why some drivers have top cars and some are left in midfield cars and luck tends not to have that much to do with it.

Obviously a dig at Hamilton but look at the teammates he's had, Alonso, Button and Rosberg, all world champions, I think Rosberg showed his worth against Schumacher if you want to go down the dominant car route. Even Bottas who beat Massa 3 years on the trot, Massa was about 30 seconds away from being a world champion and he beat his world champion teammate Raikkonen.

Hamilton has shown himself to be better than all these drivers bar Alonso were it was very equal, Alonso proclaimed by many as the best driver of this generation, you think that Hamilton doesn't deserve to be in the top 5?

So you believe that stepping in to the fastest car in 2007 or being pursuaded to join Mercedes in 2013 has nothing with luck to do at all?

So Felipe Massa was pulling Grand Chelems against Alonso and Hamilton in the 2nd best car?

When both finished Alonso beat Massa 8-5 in 2007 and that 8 included -

- Massa started 20th in Australia after blowing up in qualifying- Massa started in the pits at Silverstone after clutch failure on the grid- Massa started 16th in Hungary due to getting blocked on his qualifying lap- Massa getting overtaken by Alonso in the closing stages on the European GP as the rain started to fall- The wet race in China where Massa was nowhere until it dried out and he began to catch Alonso.

In Massa's 5 finishes ahead, Alonso had broke down in Q3 and started 10th in France. Massa took pole and had been quicker than Alonso all weekend and likely would have finished ahead anyway.

Conclusion - Massa was able to beat Alonso about half the time in 2007. If it was dry then that was considerably more than half. No way can Massa be on Alonso's pace in an inferior car, the opposite was true in the second half of 2006 and everything after 2007 points to the opposite too.

The McLaren of 2007 was voted car of the year in 2007, even Alonso said it was the fastest car, but perhaps you know better than he who drove it?Keep laughing..

"“The car was winner immediately. Starting from scratch was the way to g because 2007 was the year of change as the Bridgestone tyres had different characteristics and the car was very different car to drive, with a lot of oversteer. We had to change the way we drive. All this helped Hamilton and he was competitive immediately. With the best car we lost both championships. And that was a good reason for me to change teams,” explained Alonso."

So much depends on the car, how you can depend on it's grip and how easy it is to setup and drive, some drivers spend their whole career in low or midfield cars and have to adjust to being handicapped and some spend whole careers in top shelf cars.

So much of all of these discussions are resultdriven, and that makes it only about 2-4 drivers max per race, for the last years (2014-2016) only 2, last race only 1 had the equipment to win, so how do you rate that?

There is a reason why some drivers have top cars and some are left in midfield cars and luck tends not to have that much to do with it.

Obviously a dig at Hamilton but look at the teammates he's had, Alonso, Button and Rosberg, all world champions, I think Rosberg showed his worth against Schumacher if you want to go down the dominant car route. Even Bottas who beat Massa 3 years on the trot, Massa was about 30 seconds away from being a world champion and he beat his world champion teammate Raikkonen.

Hamilton has shown himself to be better than all these drivers bar Alonso were it was very equal, Alonso proclaimed by many as the best driver of this generation, you think that Hamilton doesn't deserve to be in the top 5?

So you believe that stepping in to the fastest car in 2007 or being pursuaded to join Mercedes in 2013 has nothing with luck to do at all?

So Felipe Massa was pulling Grand Chelems against Alonso and Hamilton in the 2nd best car?

When both finished Alonso beat Massa 8-5 in 2007 and that 8 included -

- Massa started 20th in Australia after blowing up in qualifying- Massa started in the pits at Silverstone after clutch failure on the grid- Massa started 16th in Hungary due to getting blocked on his qualifying lap- Massa getting overtaken by Alonso in the closing stages on the European GP as the rain started to fall- The wet race in China where Massa was nowhere until it dried out and he began to catch Alonso.

In Massa's 5 finishes ahead, Alonso had broke down in Q3 and started 10th in France. Massa took pole and had been quicker than Alonso all weekend and likely would have finished ahead anyway.

Conclusion - Massa was able to beat Alonso about half the time in 2007. If it was dry then that was considerably more than half. No way can Massa be on Alonso's pace in an inferior car, the opposite was true in the second half of 2006 and everything after 2007 points to the opposite too.

The McLaren of 2007 was voted car of the year in 2007, even Alonso said it was the fastest car, but perhaps you know better than he who drove it?Keep laughing..

"“The car was winner immediately. Starting from scratch was the way to g because 2007 was the year of change as the Bridgestone tyres had different characteristics and the car was very different car to drive, with a lot of oversteer. We had to change the way we drive. All this helped Hamilton and he was competitive immediately. With the best car we lost both championships. And that was a good reason for me to change teams,” explained Alonso."

Alonso who was basically sacked by the team and wants to blame the team for the loss of the titles, Mercedes who were co-owners of McLaren and have recently said they will not work again with Alonso because of what happened in 2007, but it was his decision to change teams and drive for a midfield team, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Meanwhile Alonso states that he will be winning races in 2018, Alonso likes to play politics.

Alonso who was basically sacked by the team and wants to blame the team for the loss of the titles, Mercedes who were co-owners of McLaren and have recently said they will not work again with Alonso because of what happened in 2007, but it was his decision to change teams and drive for a midfield team, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Meanwhile Alonso states that he will be winning races in 2018, Alonso likes to play politics.

True that, he is a bit of a flawed genius - min you, who isn't in that sport, Senna, Prost, Piquet, Hamilton, Schumacher, the list goes on!!!

What is difficult to dispute is that Alonso has been quick in every car he has driven regardless of conditions, relative performance or team mate competitiveness , so he can peddle and very unlikely not to be considered a great of the sport for years to come.

So much depends on the car, how you can depend on it's grip and how easy it is to setup and drive, some drivers spend their whole career in low or midfield cars and have to adjust to being handicapped and some spend whole careers in top shelf cars.

So much of all of these discussions are resultdriven, and that makes it only about 2-4 drivers max per race, for the last years (2014-2016) only 2, last race only 1 had the equipment to win, so how do you rate that?

There is a reason why some drivers have top cars and some are left in midfield cars and luck tends not to have that much to do with it.

Obviously a dig at Hamilton but look at the teammates he's had, Alonso, Button and Rosberg, all world champions, I think Rosberg showed his worth against Schumacher if you want to go down the dominant car route. Even Bottas who beat Massa 3 years on the trot, Massa was about 30 seconds away from being a world champion and he beat his world champion teammate Raikkonen.

Hamilton has shown himself to be better than all these drivers bar Alonso were it was very equal, Alonso proclaimed by many as the best driver of this generation, you think that Hamilton doesn't deserve to be in the top 5?

So you believe that stepping in to the fastest car in 2007 or being pursuaded to join Mercedes in 2013 has nothing with luck to do at all?

So Felipe Massa was pulling Grand Chelems against Alonso and Hamilton in the 2nd best car?

When both finished Alonso beat Massa 8-5 in 2007 and that 8 included -

- Massa started 20th in Australia after blowing up in qualifying- Massa started in the pits at Silverstone after clutch failure on the grid- Massa started 16th in Hungary due to getting blocked on his qualifying lap- Massa getting overtaken by Alonso in the closing stages on the European GP as the rain started to fall- The wet race in China where Massa was nowhere until it dried out and he began to catch Alonso.

In Massa's 5 finishes ahead, Alonso had broke down in Q3 and started 10th in France. Massa took pole and had been quicker than Alonso all weekend and likely would have finished ahead anyway.

Conclusion - Massa was able to beat Alonso about half the time in 2007. If it was dry then that was considerably more than half. No way can Massa be on Alonso's pace in an inferior car, the opposite was true in the second half of 2006 and everything after 2007 points to the opposite too.

The McLaren of 2007 was voted car of the year in 2007, even Alonso said it was the fastest car, but perhaps you know better than he who drove it?Keep laughing..

"“The car was winner immediately. Starting from scratch was the way to g because 2007 was the year of change as the Bridgestone tyres had different characteristics and the car was very different car to drive, with a lot of oversteer. We had to change the way we drive. All this helped Hamilton and he was competitive immediately. With the best car we lost both championships. And that was a good reason for me to change teams,” explained Alonso."

In 2007 I don't think Alonso knew how good Kimi/Massa really were although he obviously knows now. You would have to say in light of Kimi's 2007 and Felipe's 2008 that even if the McLaren was very competitive and good enough to win races, Ferrari was clearly faster in those two years as neither Kimi/Felipe have repeated that kind of form since.

There is a reason why some drivers have top cars and some are left in midfield cars and luck tends not to have that much to do with it.

Obviously a dig at Hamilton but look at the teammates he's had, Alonso, Button and Rosberg, all world champions, I think Rosberg showed his worth against Schumacher if you want to go down the dominant car route. Even Bottas who beat Massa 3 years on the trot, Massa was about 30 seconds away from being a world champion and he beat his world champion teammate Raikkonen.

Hamilton has shown himself to be better than all these drivers bar Alonso were it was very equal, Alonso proclaimed by many as the best driver of this generation, you think that Hamilton doesn't deserve to be in the top 5?

So you believe that stepping in to the fastest car in 2007 or being pursuaded to join Mercedes in 2013 has nothing with luck to do at all?

So Felipe Massa was pulling Grand Chelems against Alonso and Hamilton in the 2nd best car?

When both finished Alonso beat Massa 8-5 in 2007 and that 8 included -

- Massa started 20th in Australia after blowing up in qualifying- Massa started in the pits at Silverstone after clutch failure on the grid- Massa started 16th in Hungary due to getting blocked on his qualifying lap- Massa getting overtaken by Alonso in the closing stages on the European GP as the rain started to fall- The wet race in China where Massa was nowhere until it dried out and he began to catch Alonso.

In Massa's 5 finishes ahead, Alonso had broke down in Q3 and started 10th in France. Massa took pole and had been quicker than Alonso all weekend and likely would have finished ahead anyway.

Conclusion - Massa was able to beat Alonso about half the time in 2007. If it was dry then that was considerably more than half. No way can Massa be on Alonso's pace in an inferior car, the opposite was true in the second half of 2006 and everything after 2007 points to the opposite too.

The McLaren of 2007 was voted car of the year in 2007, even Alonso said it was the fastest car, but perhaps you know better than he who drove it?Keep laughing..

"“The car was winner immediately. Starting from scratch was the way to g because 2007 was the year of change as the Bridgestone tyres had different characteristics and the car was very different car to drive, with a lot of oversteer. We had to change the way we drive. All this helped Hamilton and he was competitive immediately. With the best car we lost both championships. And that was a good reason for me to change teams,” explained Alonso."

Alonso who was basically sacked by the team and wants to blame the team for the loss of the titles, Mercedes who were co-owners of McLaren and have recently said they will not work again with Alonso because of what happened in 2007, but it was his decision to change teams and drive for a midfield team, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Meanwhile Alonso states that he will be winning races in 2018, Alonso likes to play politics.

Alonso who was basically sacked by the team and wants to blame the team for the loss of the titles, Mercedes who were co-owners of McLaren and have recently said they will not work again with Alonso because of what happened in 2007, but it was his decision to change teams and drive for a midfield team, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Meanwhile Alonso states that he will be winning races in 2018, Alonso likes to play politics.

True that, he is a bit of a flawed genius - min you, who isn't in that sport, Senna, Prost, Piquet, Hamilton, Schumacher, the list goes on!!!

What is difficult to dispute is that Alonso has been quick in every car he has driven regardless of conditions, relative performance or team mate competitiveness , so he can peddle and very unlikely not to be considered a great of the sport for years to come.

I wouldn't dispute that but maybe you should be answering the post that says that the McLaren was the fastest car in 2007 and the likes of Kimi and Massa were the equal of him, in fact Kimi in an inferior car must have been better?

Alonso who was basically sacked by the team and wants to blame the team for the loss of the titles, Mercedes who were co-owners of McLaren and have recently said they will not work again with Alonso because of what happened in 2007, but it was his decision to change teams and drive for a midfield team, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Meanwhile Alonso states that he will be winning races in 2018, Alonso likes to play politics.

True that, he is a bit of a flawed genius - min you, who isn't in that sport, Senna, Prost, Piquet, Hamilton, Schumacher, the list goes on!!!

What is difficult to dispute is that Alonso has been quick in every car he has driven regardless of conditions, relative performance or team mate competitiveness , so he can peddle and very unlikely not to be considered a great of the sport for years to come.

I wouldn't dispute that but maybe you should be answering the post that says that the McLaren was the fastest car in 2007 and the likes of Kimi and Massa were the equal of him, in fact Kimi in an inferior car must have been better?

Nothing to say that on their day that a driver can be awesome - look at Hill, he beat Schuamcher on occasion but nobody would rate Hill above Schumacher, even Hill himself doesn't

Using another sport, Federer gets beaten by the World number 30 in the US Open, that doesn't stop Federer from being viewed as one of the best players ever.

Kimi in 2005-2007 was very quick indeed and Massa was not far behind. The Ferrari in those years was also a brilliant machine. Was it faster than the McLaren? Debatable, but maybe only a few percentage points slower. A driver or a car might not be the best, but it doesn't mean that it is the worst either and sometimes they can win against the best

The McLaren of 2007 was voted car of the year in 2007, even Alonso said it was the fastest car, but perhaps you know better than he who drove it?Keep laughing..

"“The car was winner immediately. Starting from scratch was the way to g because 2007 was the year of change as the Bridgestone tyres had different characteristics and the car was very different car to drive, with a lot of oversteer. We had to change the way we drive. All this helped Hamilton and he was competitive immediately. With the best car we lost both championships. And that was a good reason for me to change teams,” explained Alonso."

Indeed I do know better because even I thought the cars were equal back then and believed Kimi Raikkonen was better than both Hamilton and Alonso. From the Monaco GP 2008 I changed my mind on that when Massa pulled away from him in the wet and everything we have seen since supports that. We know a lot more about all the drivers involved in that title fight. Ask Alonso now what he thinks of the 2007 Mclaren, now that he has completely thrashed the two guys who were beating him on a weekly basis in the 2007 Ferrari.

Yes Alonso is right, the car was a winner right away. A winning car in the hands of arguably/probably the best two drivers to debut in the last 25 years or at least among the top 3 or 4 fighting against Massa and a Kimi that struggled for half a season - note Kimi himself got thrashed by Massa for speed over the first 7 races until he acclimatised.

Its not 2005, Kimi Raikkonen is not the fastest driver in the world.. that ship has long sailed and was the single reason the Mclaren was considered to be so good in 2007 is based on Kimi being a top driver. Which he never really was, a very good one but no better than Massa (except in the wet) as shown over 3 seasons.

The consensus at the moment is that the Mercedes is a superior car to the Ferrari. But what if Bottas teamed up with Vettel next year and was 0.3 a lap quicker than him and easily beat him over the season and then Vettel teamed up with Hamilton and he was 0.5 a lap quicker than Vettel then maybe we might look back on 2017 and change our minds?

Nothing to say that on their day that a driver can be awesome - look at Hill, he beat Schuamcher on occasion but nobody would rate Hill above Schumacher, even Hill himself doesn't

Using another sport, Federer gets beaten by the World number 30 in the US Open, that doesn't stop Federer from being viewed as one of the best players ever.

Kimi in 2005-2007 was very quick indeed and Massa was not far behind. The Ferrari in those years was also a brilliant machine. Was it faster than the McLaren? Debatable, but maybe only a few percentage points slower. A driver or a car might not be the best, but it doesn't mean that it is the worst either and sometimes they can win against the best

Hill beat Schumacher with a superior car, its as simple as that. You are falling into the same trap of not considering the car.

Tennis is different to Motorsport, its one man vs on man and reliant on the physical side and injuries etc etc.

Formula one is much more consistent with its results there isn't big upsets. A slow driver can not perform a miracle. In other sports like Football or Tennis you can win by pulling off some great shots or in Football literally have 1 shot on goal whilst the opponents have 30.

In F1, you can not do a lap time by luck, its simple as that. You might win a race because 10 cars retire in front of you, but here we are discussing performance level and that is something that doesn't vary much and drivers can not over perform.

During 2005-2006. Massa was actually slow. The largest gap between team mates in 2006 in terms of qualifying and race pace was between Schumacher and Massa. Schumacher thrashed him although he did fluke two wins.

The McLaren of 2007 was voted car of the year in 2007, even Alonso said it was the fastest car, but perhaps you know better than he who drove it?Keep laughing..

"“The car was winner immediately. Starting from scratch was the way to g because 2007 was the year of change as the Bridgestone tyres had different characteristics and the car was very different car to drive, with a lot of oversteer. We had to change the way we drive. All this helped Hamilton and he was competitive immediately. With the best car we lost both championships. And that was a good reason for me to change teams,” explained Alonso."

Indeed I do know better because even I thought the cars were equal back then and believed Kimi Raikkonen was better than both Hamilton and Alonso. From the Monaco GP 2008 I changed my mind on that when Massa pulled away from him in the wet and everything we have seen since supports that. We know a lot more about all the drivers involved in that title fight. Ask Alonso now what he thinks of the 2007 Mclaren, now that he has completely thrashed the two guys who were beating him on a weekly basis in the 2007 Ferrari.

Yes Alonso is right, the car was a winner right away. A winning car in the hands of arguably/probably the best two drivers to debut in the last 25 years or at least among the top 3 or 4 fighting against Massa and a Kimi that struggled for half a season - note Kimi himself got thrashed by Massa for speed over the first 7 races until he acclimatised.

Its not 2005, Kimi Raikkonen is not the fastest driver in the world.. that ship has long sailed and was the single reason the Mclaren was considered to be so good in 2007 is based on Kimi being a top driver. Which he never really was, a very good one but no better than Massa (except in the wet) as shown over 3 seasons.

The consensus at the moment is that the Mercedes is a superior car to the Ferrari. But what if Bottas teamed up with Vettel next year and was 0.3 a lap quicker than him and easily beat him over the season and then Vettel teamed up with Hamilton and he was 0.5 a lap quicker than Vettel then maybe we might look back on 2017 and change our minds?

Alonso who was basically sacked by the team and wants to blame the team for the loss of the titles, Mercedes who were co-owners of McLaren and have recently said they will not work again with Alonso because of what happened in 2007, but it was his decision to change teams and drive for a midfield team, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Meanwhile Alonso states that he will be winning races in 2018, Alonso likes to play politics.

True that, he is a bit of a flawed genius - min you, who isn't in that sport, Senna, Prost, Piquet, Hamilton, Schumacher, the list goes on!!!

What is difficult to dispute is that Alonso has been quick in every car he has driven regardless of conditions, relative performance or team mate competitiveness , so he can peddle and very unlikely not to be considered a great of the sport for years to come.

I wouldn't dispute that but maybe you should be answering the post that says that the McLaren was the fastest car in 2007 and the likes of Kimi and Massa were the equal of him, in fact Kimi in an inferior car must have been better?

Nothing to say that on their day that a driver can be awesome - look at Hill, he beat Schuamcher on occasion but nobody would rate Hill above Schumacher, even Hill himself doesn't

Using another sport, Federer gets beaten by the World number 30 in the US Open, that doesn't stop Federer from being viewed as one of the best players ever.

Kimi in 2005-2007 was very quick indeed and Massa was not far behind. The Ferrari in those years was also a brilliant machine. Was it faster than the McLaren? Debatable, but maybe only a few percentage points slower. A driver or a car might not be the best, but it doesn't mean that it is the worst either and sometimes they can win against the best

Alonso who was basically sacked by the team and wants to blame the team for the loss of the titles, Mercedes who were co-owners of McLaren and have recently said they will not work again with Alonso because of what happened in 2007, but it was his decision to change teams and drive for a midfield team, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Meanwhile Alonso states that he will be winning races in 2018, Alonso likes to play politics.

True that, he is a bit of a flawed genius - min you, who isn't in that sport, Senna, Prost, Piquet, Hamilton, Schumacher, the list goes on!!!

What is difficult to dispute is that Alonso has been quick in every car he has driven regardless of conditions, relative performance or team mate competitiveness , so he can peddle and very unlikely not to be considered a great of the sport for years to come.

I wouldn't dispute that but maybe you should be answering the post that says that the McLaren was the fastest car in 2007 and the likes of Kimi and Massa were the equal of him, in fact Kimi in an inferior car must have been better?

Nothing to say that on their day that a driver can be awesome - look at Hill, he beat Schuamcher on occasion but nobody would rate Hill above Schumacher, even Hill himself doesn't

Using another sport, Federer gets beaten by the World number 30 in the US Open, that doesn't stop Federer from being viewed as one of the best players ever.

Kimi in 2005-2007 was very quick indeed and Massa was not far behind. The Ferrari in those years was also a brilliant machine. Was it faster than the McLaren? Debatable, but maybe only a few percentage points slower. A driver or a car might not be the best, but it doesn't mean that it is the worst either and sometimes they can win against the best

On a occasion yes, over the season no.

Hill beating Schumacher again you have to be looking at the car.

Think you might have misunderstood what I meant - I was just trying to illustrate that on occasion the results go against the norm, and that does not mean that the result is the norm.

True that, he is a bit of a flawed genius - min you, who isn't in that sport, Senna, Prost, Piquet, Hamilton, Schumacher, the list goes on!!!

What is difficult to dispute is that Alonso has been quick in every car he has driven regardless of conditions, relative performance or team mate competitiveness , so he can peddle and very unlikely not to be considered a great of the sport for years to come.

I wouldn't dispute that but maybe you should be answering the post that says that the McLaren was the fastest car in 2007 and the likes of Kimi and Massa were the equal of him, in fact Kimi in an inferior car must have been better?

Nothing to say that on their day that a driver can be awesome - look at Hill, he beat Schuamcher on occasion but nobody would rate Hill above Schumacher, even Hill himself doesn't

Using another sport, Federer gets beaten by the World number 30 in the US Open, that doesn't stop Federer from being viewed as one of the best players ever.

Kimi in 2005-2007 was very quick indeed and Massa was not far behind. The Ferrari in those years was also a brilliant machine. Was it faster than the McLaren? Debatable, but maybe only a few percentage points slower. A driver or a car might not be the best, but it doesn't mean that it is the worst either and sometimes they can win against the best

On a occasion yes, over the season no.

Hill beating Schumacher again you have to be looking at the car.

Think you might have misunderstood what I meant - I was just trying to illustrate that on occasion the results go against the norm, and that does not mean that the result is the norm.

In 2007 I don't think Alonso knew how good Kimi/Massa really were although he obviously knows now. You would have to say in light of Kimi's 2007 and Felipe's 2008 that even if the McLaren was very competitive and good enough to win races, Ferrari was clearly faster in those two years as neither Kimi/Felipe have repeated that kind of form since.

I think this is a good point. Back in 2007, Kimi was widely accepted as one of the fastest drivers in F1, and many people just went along with assuming Massa had made a huge improvement since 2006. Alonso (to whatever extent he believed it even then) was probably saying what he thought was true at the time, but that doesn't mean he'd still believe it.

In 2007 I don't think Alonso knew how good Kimi/Massa really were although he obviously knows now. You would have to say in light of Kimi's 2007 and Felipe's 2008 that even if the McLaren was very competitive and good enough to win races, Ferrari was clearly faster in those two years as neither Kimi/Felipe have repeated that kind of form since.

I think this is a good point. Back in 2007, Kimi was widely accepted as one of the fastest drivers in F1, and many people just went along with assuming Massa had made a huge improvement since 2006. Alonso (to whatever extent he believed it even then) was probably saying what he thought was true at the time, but that doesn't mean he'd still believe it.

That and the fact in the same sentence he said he left Mclaren because they managed to lose both championships with the best car just shows it a parting jab at Mclaren.

He left to join Renualt who's drivers scored 30 and 21 points respectively on 2007 compared to LH and FA's 109 each.

But he must have known he was better than Massa even then, he was beating Massa regularly in the 2nd half of 2006 when the Ferrari was clearly the best car and the gap between Schumacher and Massa was huge.

No worries, was just in response to you suggesting I should respond to the posts that Kimi and Massa were fastest cos of a car in 200x

I was proposing that one year of fast does not make a legend - whereas Alonso has been fast for so many years now, regardless of the car.

You just seem to be missing the reality of 2007 and 2008. It wasn't "one year of fast" for Kimi and Felipe. McLaren had vastly superior drivers with a mildly inferior car. The drivers were good enough to make up for the car. That's really all there is to it. It's not that Massa and Raikkonen were significantly better than they are now relative to Hamilton and Alonso and it's not that Alonso and Hamilton were worse. It's that the cars were not actually equal. Hindsight makes that crystal clear.

In 2007 I don't think Alonso knew how good Kimi/Massa really were although he obviously knows now. You would have to say in light of Kimi's 2007 and Felipe's 2008 that even if the McLaren was very competitive and good enough to win races, Ferrari was clearly faster in those two years as neither Kimi/Felipe have repeated that kind of form since.

I think this is a good point. Back in 2007, Kimi was widely accepted as one of the fastest drivers in F1, and many people just went along with assuming Massa had made a huge improvement since 2006. Alonso (to whatever extent he believed it even then) was probably saying what he thought was true at the time, but that doesn't mean he'd still believe it.

Yeah you basically had to believe that Massa had found half a second over the winter between 2006 and 2007.

In 2007 I don't think Alonso knew how good Kimi/Massa really were although he obviously knows now. You would have to say in light of Kimi's 2007 and Felipe's 2008 that even if the McLaren was very competitive and good enough to win races, Ferrari was clearly faster in those two years as neither Kimi/Felipe have repeated that kind of form since.

I think this is a good point. Back in 2007, Kimi was widely accepted as one of the fastest drivers in F1, and many people just went along with assuming Massa had made a huge improvement since 2006. Alonso (to whatever extent he believed it even then) was probably saying what he thought was true at the time, but that doesn't mean he'd still believe it.

Yeah you basically had to believe that Massa had found half a second over the winter between 2006 and 2007.

I believe most people wrote it off as proof that Schumacher's teammate weren't allowed to challenge him, and Massa was suddenly quicker because he wasn't under the crushing influence of a #1 driver.

Or something. Only a small number seemed to believe Kimi was struggling instead, and an even smaller number believed it showed Kimi was never really on Schumi's level.

Think you might have misunderstood what I meant - I was just trying to illustrate that on occasion the results go against the norm, and that does not mean that the result is the norm.

Maybe in one race but never a season, can you name a season in which a driver clearly performed without doubt higher than he did at any other time? I can not think of one.

Frentzen springs to mind Villeneuve (although could be argued he got 2 good seasons), Ralf S, Montoya, Trulli - there are a few that have an epic season and then seem to disappear into average - could be the car but that is the poiint, the true great drivers do not disappear when the car is avergae, they go beyond the car - all of those examples did not.

No worries, was just in response to you suggesting I should respond to the posts that Kimi and Massa were fastest cos of a car in 200x

I was proposing that one year of fast does not make a legend - whereas Alonso has been fast for so many years now, regardless of the car.

You just seem to be missing the reality of 2007 and 2008. It wasn't "one year of fast" for Kimi and Felipe. McLaren had vastly superior drivers with a mildly inferior car. The drivers were good enough to make up for the car. That's really all there is to it. It's not that Massa and Raikkonen were significantly better than they are now relative to Hamilton and Alonso and it's not that Alonso and Hamilton were worse. It's that the cars were not actually equal. Hindsight makes that crystal clear.

Not sure I fully follow what you are saying in response to me, but in the spirit of good debate

I would struggle to recall a season where cars were truly equal in F1, so we have to go in the merits of a driver over more than a few races/seasons. If we look at Hamilton as a driver just for 2007, he was the best anyone has ever seen - Rookie year and took on an illustrious team mate in Alonso. But we don't, we look at all seasons that are available and balance this against the car, the team mates, the engines, the motivation, their personal life, anything that could be factored into having an impact on their performance.

For me, (and it is subjective), Kimi and Massa did not live up to the same level of Alonso and the the in the Top 5 list even though they were fast in their day, and still can be. Any driver in F1 will be good enough to make up for a deficit in the car, but some do more than that. Schumi, Hammy, Alonso, they all drive around the car and put in performances that defy the cars abilities.

McLaren had vastly superior drivers with a mildly inferior car. The drivers were good enough to make up for the car. That's really all there is to it. It's not that Massa and Raikkonen were significantly better than they are now relative to Hamilton and Alonso and it's not that Alonso and Hamilton were worse. It's that the cars were not actually equal. Hindsight makes that crystal clear.

It's simply not true, Lewis threw away the biggest lead in points ever in 2007 in the best car, and Kimi was fast enough to take advantage of it.